Senator Lieberman is putting the strong-arm on Harry Reid as the senate prepares another round in the anti-war battle. Here's what he said about switching parties in the Report from Carrie Budoff of The Politico:
Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut told the Politico on Thursday that he has no immediate plans to switch parties but suggested that Democratic opposition to funding the war in Iraq might change his mind...
“I have no desire to change parties,” Lieberman said in a telephone interview. “If that ever happens, it is because I feel the majority of Democrats have gone in a direction that I don’t feel comfortable with.”
Asked whether that hasn’t already happened with Iraq, Lieberman said: “We will see how that plays out in the coming months,” specifically how the party approaches the issue of continued funding for the war.
Although Time reported that Lieberman said his allying with the GOP was "a very remote possibility," the senator is now changing his tune to "I have no desire or intention to leave the Democratic Party or the Democratic caucus. I hope and believe we'll never get to that point, so I believe this latest flurry is much ado about nothing."
At this point, it doesn't matter much what he says. Lieberman has created enough concern among Democrat leaders to get their attention.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Lieberman is an honest, respectable man. He has what many politicians (on both sides of the aisle) are missing: integrity. I don't like his social politics, but I do respect the man. He is one of very few Democrats that can get my praise.
Yes, Sirocco, this Lieberman. Consider the source of the article (Salon).
Sirocco,
About your "imepeccably sourced>"
You are not going out and believing Greenwald again. If you want to have a discussion on intellectually dishonest, he always makes a fine starting point.
Hell, Sirocco, I would quote you as a higer source of intellectual argument than Greenwald. You make better arguments unaided.
Sirocco,
1. Greenwald implies that Lieberman's prior quote refers to the security situation in Baghdad in particular when this is clearly not the case. Lieberman refers to the Sunni triangle and says that we have had some success there, which we have, but the quote Greenwald specifically culls is not about Baghdad, which is opposite of the impression that Greenwald is trying to convey. He is either being sloppy or disingenuous here. With Greenwald, sloppy is a possibility.
2. Obviously it has been shown that the "clear, hold, build" strategy has been a success in many areas of Iraq, but not so much in others. It is quite reasonable to come to the conclusion that the reason it has not worked so well in Baghdad is that we did not have enough troops in Baghdad. Because a change in strategy is needed in Baghdad, does not invalidate the successes in other areas of Iraq. To go even further, I would bet there are things we will do in six months that we are not doing now. That does not mean that what we are doing now is a failure, it just a shift of strategy which is a good thing.
3. Not at all. It is possible to question the way the war is being conducted both now and in the past and yet still feel like it can, should, and needs to be won. This is actually the most prudent position possible, and one Lieberman has held all along. Greenwald is trying to play out-of-context gotcha, a game he is very familiar with. He is not worth your considerable effort.
I may be entirely wrong here, but I believe that it is not possible to filibuster senate rules issues, therefore the whole Nuclear/Constitutional option debate of yesteryear.
That being said, Lieberman is not a Republican, so he ought not be threatening to become one over this one issue. Just vote the way he wishes on the war and leave it at that.
If he does an about-face on a little more domestic policy, then we can talk.
OK, here is the quote:
"Progress in “clearing” and “holding” is being made. The Sixth Infantry Division of the Iraqi Security Forces now controls and polices more than one-third of Baghdad on its own. Coalition and Iraqi forces have together cleared the previously terrorist controlled cities of Fallujah, Mosul, and Talafar and most of the border with Syria. Those areas are now being “held” secure by the Iraqi military themselves. Iraqi and Coalition Forces are now jointly carrying out a mission to clear Ramadi, now the most dangerous city in Al-Anbar province at the west end of the Sunni Triangle. "
Is there anything about this quote that wasn't true in Nov. 2005? It says one third of Baghdad is controlled by Iraqi forces, not ALL of Baghdad. This is where the shortfall occurs. It was assumed that more Iraqis would become available to plug the gaps to finish the strategy. This didn't turn out to be true in Baghdad, but it was true in Talafar, for instance, and Al-Anbar, where the war is really going well for us currently (not that you'd hear of it on the news).
Eventually, enough Iraqi's could have been freed up to cover Baghdad, but because time is now of the expediency of political necessity, this must be accomplished sooner. Thus the surge of American troops.
The surge is a lesser portion of the new strategy in my opinion. The change in tactics and rules of engagement has been far more useful to this point in the Petraeus regime.
Sirocco,
Actually, I don't think Lieberman would agree with Bush if he suggested getting out by years-end since his position would then contradict his pro-Israeli stance.
As for Lieberman's threats, remember, he is caucusing with the Dems which is what gives the Dems a slight majority. Regardless of what committee he might sit on, he could caucus with the Reps and cause nightmares for Reid without changing parties.
Post a Comment